David Bidstrup guest post. Why bother?

The other day I found an interesting video in which Dr Ron Brown  discussed the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction in vaccines. The video can be found here.   The video is around 32 minutes long and the interviewer is a bit painful however it is very interesting and informative. At least look from the 26 minute mark for his concluding remarks.

Dr Brown authored a paper on the bias in reporting vaccine efficacy for two of the Covid vaccines, one of which is currently used in Australia, and this is the subject of the interview. The paper can be found here.

The takeaway message is that the actual vaccine efficacy is not the 95% we hear but 0.7%, a reduction of slightly more than bugger all. Considering the other concerns about these experimental vaccines and the adverse effects being reported it seems that “getting the jab” is worse than useless and could cause more harm than good.

Another video well worth the time is one featuring Dr Peter Mc McCullough,  see here.

The news these days is full of dramatic BS about the “Delta variant” and the continuing cluster scare in Victoria. Opinion writers and correspondents want vaccination to be made mandatory. It would be nice if they were a bit better informed and wrote the truth rather than parrot the propaganda. We need to remember that the death toll this year from the “deadly disease” is one. Maybe one day it will happen but I am not terribly optimistic. It is interesting to see the story coming out of the USA. With friends like that who needs enemies?

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to David Bidstrup guest post. Why bother?

  1. Baa Humbug says:

    Nothing will change unless the media get on board, and that ain’t gonna happen.

  2. Botswana O'Hooligan says:

    At 80 years of age, a letter signed by P M Morrison, Greg Hunt, and Prof Paul Kelly, hit the letterbox today urging me to make all haste in getting vaccinated and registering with Medicare. The two page letter came in handy to light the wood in the wood heater.

  3. Fat Tony says:

    The MSM are behind all this – they are the enemy of the people

  4. Timothy Neilson says:

    Perhaps one possibly valid counter-argument by the government is that if all restrictions are dropped permanently the proportion of the population which gets infected will get much higher, in which case the absolute risk figures would also get much higher.

    Presumably if the presumption about infection rates increasing is valid the argument is also valid.
    But is the presumption valid? Aren’t Sweden’s COVID outcomes now better than the European average?

  5. Fat Tony says:

    Timothy Neilson says:
    June 9, 2021 at 5:59 pm

    Timothy – I, for one, am getting sick of stepping over all the dead bodies in the street….

  6. Rafe Champion says:

    Tim, sensible governments would have allowed the use of drugs that are known to be effective. Apart from that, check out the series of posts from David Bidstrup and wonder how many lives were lost and how much it cost, and is continuing to cost.

    We alsio need a court challenge to the proposal for compulsory vaccination with a substance that has not cleared the usual tests and protocols.

  7. Timothy Neilson says:

    Timothy – I, for one, am getting sick of stepping over all the dead bodies in the street….

    Be as cynical as you like FT, but if it wasn’t for the wisdom and strength of character of Maximum Leader and his peerless team your scenario would be all too true.

  8. Epicurious says:

    Jon Rappaport has described this concept in detail for months and months at his website nomorefakenews.com

    The problem we now have is the sheeple want mum and dad government to tell them what to do. Why take responsibility when your government can do that and fill your pockets with gold coin?

  9. Fat Tony says:

    Rafe Champion says:
    June 9, 2021 at 6:08 pm
    We alsio need a court challenge to the proposal for compulsory vaccination with a substance that has not cleared the usual tests and protocols.

    Fail – remember that “the Parliament would have considered that before acting….”

  10. Timothy Neilson says:

    Tim, sensible governments would have allowed the use of drugs that are known to be effective.

    Of course they would Rafe. I’m not arguing that the assertions covered in your post are wrong, and I’m certainly not advocating for the current public policy catastrophe that’s being inflicted on us. I’m just pointing out that the “absolute risk” calculations are based on current infection rates and so mightn’t be valid in the alternative scenario. To the extent that there’s evidence that lockdowns and other restrictions are useless (cf my question above about Sweden) then that would support being able to translate the stated absolute risk factors into the “no restrictions” scenario.

  11. Roger says:

    Aren’t Sweden’s COVID outcomes now better than the European average?

    Last time I checked they were slightly worse than the European average but not significantly enough to draw any other conclusion than that in terms of outcomes Sweden, with voluntary measures only and no coercion, managed the first and second waves of covid acceptably and certainly much better than hard lockdown countries like the Czech Republic or the UK. Further, many of their mortalities were people from urban ethnic enclaves where a number of factors – overcrowding, lack of information, poor general health – might be expected to result in worse figures than among the geenral population.

  12. Fat Tony says:

    I like all the analyses done on “COVID” deaths, using CAGW style data and logic.

    Have any of the total yearly deaths anywhere been significantly in excess of the rolling 5 year averages?

  13. Mullumhillbilly says:

    If I buy two lottery tickets instead of one, I have increased my relative chance of winning, by 100% !! How good is that !

  14. David Bidstrup says:

    Fat Tony. See post of April 3 titled “this is what we trashed the country for”8

  15. sfw says:

    The only reason I can think of as to why ‘experts’ all around the world pushed for such draconian measures, is that they are privy to some information that they dare not share with us. Something along the lines of “It’s an engineered virus with much higher transmission and lethality than anything else known and that it was produced in a Chinese lab with US and other international assistance”. If true it would make sense of the ridiculous measures they want. Now that it appears to be not particularly deadly they can’t walk it back without (a) looking like fools, or (b) admitting why they took the measures in the first place, or a combination of both. So they keep doubling down.

  16. Professor Fred Lenin says:

    So Fauci and the other western virologists financed the chinese army biowar lab constructed by Barnier the EU aparatchik against security and scientific advice ,because it was politically dangerous to do the research in Western labs where there might be whistle blowers who could destroy their reputations and stop further funding to them . Now the chinese are leading biowar research ,well done comrades marx would be proud of you .

  17. Matt says:

    The takeaway message is that the actual vaccine efficacy is not the 95% we hear but 0.7%, a reduction of slightly more than bugger all.

    Well, not exactly. The 95% figures are relative risk reduction, and the 0.7% is absolute risk reduction. They are different ways of efficacy and neither is right or wrong – as long as you understand what they are measuring.

  18. MatrixTransform says:

    and the 0.7% is absolute risk reduction.

    Matt gives a perfect demonstration of how to out-stupid yourself in a single post

    go on, have another go you simpleton

  19. sfw says:

    The only reason I can think of as to why ‘experts’ all around the world pushed for such draconian measures, is that they are privy to some information that they dare not share with us. Something along the lines of “It’s an engineered virus with much higher transmission and lethality than anything else known and that it was produced in a Chinese lab with US and other international assistance”. If true it would make sense of the ridiculous measures they want. Now that it appears to be not particularly deadly they can’t walk it back without (a) looking like fools, or (b) admitting why they took the measures in the first place, or a combination of both. So they keep doubling down.

  20. sfw says:

    Sorry, bad copy and paste

  21. Chris M says:

    the actual vaccine efficacy is not the 95% we hear

    Well that 95% number the media love to quote was calculated from a total of 168 people in the study. Haha you’re not implying doubt in its accuracy I hope.

  22. Tel says:

    The two page letter came in handy to light the wood in the wood heater.

    You still have wood?!? L U X U R Y !

  23. ozman says:

    Matt says:
    June 9, 2021 at 8:26 pm

    The 95% figures are relative risk reduction, and the 0.7% is absolute risk reduction. They are different ways of efficacy and neither is right or wrong – as long as you understand what they are measuring.

    Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.–https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199

    More to the point, in your case, troll, it’s a pity you don’t understand that if a virus is not isolated (i.e. filtrated through a membrane capable of preventing bacteria and other matter larger than 300 nanometers) no attempt has really been made to separate it. Unless the virus has been isolated, it cannot be characterized as a separate entity. No doubt the reason papers exist at the NIH (USA) stating that since no isolates were available the genetic sequence was engineered on a computer. In other words, the virus was created in a lab–but on a computer!

    The computer modeled virus is now found in everything from humans to animals, fruit and coca cola. It also mutates just by someone playing around with the sequences, as buttons are pushed on a keyboard.

    According to Dr Shiv Chopra (d. 2018), former fellow of WHO and whistleblower, “The vaccine industry is itself a fraud. I spent my whole career studying vaccines.”

  24. Captain Katzenjammer says:

    The only reason I can think of as to why ‘experts’ all around the world pushed for such draconian measures, is that they are privy to some information that they dare not share with us.

    Experts like to agree with other experts because it enhances the perception of the expertise of experts.

  25. Leo G says:

    The 95% figures are relative risk reduction, and the 0.7% is absolute risk reduction. They are different ways of efficacy and neither is right or wrong

    I don’t believe absolute risk reduction is really a measure of efficacy. Absolute risk is highly dependent on the risk of exposure to the virus, which is highly variable over time. It also varies by geography etc- absolute risk is presently very low in NSW, but much higher in parts of India.
    Relative risk filters those effects.
    I suspect Dr Brown’s presentation may be deliberate misinformation.

  26. OldOzzie says:

    Follow the money: Big Pharma, Dr. Fauci and the death of hydroxychloroquine

    The $2.45 million Gilead spent in the first quarter of 2020 lobbying the federal government was well spent

    To better understand how using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat COVID-19 patients last year became a scientific quagmire, it’s always best to follow the money.

    HCQ is cheap (costing under $10 for the course of a COVID-19 treatment), well-understood by physicians having been prescribed for more than 80 years, and can be taken orally. Yet, Dr. Anthony Fauci and others at the National Health Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases preferred remdesivir, a proprietary, intravenous drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences, costing about $3,500 per treatment, with unknown side effects. And as to not make Big Pharma mad — and possibly threaten invites to cocktail parties, board seats and threaten grant monies — Dr. Fauci and his cohorts did everything possible to promote remdesivir and downplay HCQ, possibly costing millions of lives around the globe.

    Although, many doctors around the world were finding success with HCQ, in February 2020 NIH started enrolling patients for a remdesivir COVID-19 trial, with Dr. Fauci overseeing its progress. He had the final say on all the press releases, and presumably was working closely with Gilead. On April 16 something funny happened with the trial — the endpoints of it were quietly changed and updated on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Instead of evaluating remdesivir’s ability to prevent death from COVID-19, the study was redesigned to evaluate how fast a patient recovered from remdesivir.

  27. Matt says:

    I don’t believe absolute risk reduction is really a measure of efficacy.

    It is a measure of efficacy, and so is relative risk reduction – but just coming at the same problem from a different viewpoint. As you say, if the risk is lower, then the ARR will also be low. And it can be equally prone to a biased interpretation (as Dr Brown amply demonstrates).

  28. John says:

    Ok. So in layman’s terms, what’s the difference between relative risk reduction compared to absolute risk reduction? For example, does this mean with an absolute risk reduction of 0.7%, if I get the vaccine I’ll srtill have 99.3% chance of getting the virus? Can anybody with expertise explain this to me?

  29. Matt says:

    Assume the risk of contracting COVID was 10%, and you did study where 100 people had the vaccine and 100 people didn’t. You would expect 10 people in the control group to contract COVID. Assume that following the vaccine, only 1 person in 100 contracted COVID.

    Risk in the control group – 10% (ARC – absolute risk control)
    Risk in treatment group – 1% (ART – absolute risk treatment)

    Relative risk reduction = (ARC-ART)/ARC = 90%
    Absolute risk reduction = ARC-ART = 9%

    If the overall risk in a population is higher (say risk of the disease was 40% instead of 10%), with the same treatment efficacy (90%), the absolute risk reduction would be 36% (the risk in the treatment group would drop to 4%). It doesn’t mean the treatment is more effective now, it just means in absolute numbers more people will benefit (but that’s because more people have the disease). Ultimately you do want a vaccine (in this case) with a high relative risk reduction.

    The other figure to think about is Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 1/ARR
    So in the first example where ARR = 9%, you would need to treat 11 people to prevent 1 person from contracting COVID.
    In the second example where ARR = 36%, you would only need to treat about 3 people to prevent 1 case of COVID.

    Hope that makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.